Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Diamonds Are Bullshit

blog.priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 774 posts

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#331

Post by westicle »

svachalek wrote: post #90
hanleybrand wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Word. For the record, not all women insist on a diamond, except reflexively... I actually know few couples that have bought diamond rings (for many reasons - some financial planning (a young couple should be worried about a house, insurance and retirement before a shiny ring) and some ethical (if you buy a new diamond, there is absolutely metaphorical blood on it - terrible juju to kick off a lifetime commitment of l…

I'm not aware of any law that requires her to give it back, no matter the day.

In many jurisdictions an engagement ring is considered a conditional gift (conditional upon her agreement to marry you).

This is logical. Otherwise why not string along as many man as possible to the point of proposal, then thank them for the shiny ring and wish them farewell? Take the strategy to its inevitable conclusion, and if the woman in question calls off the engagement at any point, she should return the ring.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#332

Post by rayiner »

whatusername wrote: post #234
kscaldef wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that $25k is considered a completely reasonable amount to spend on a car. There's no doubt that the wedding industry is a racket (oh, did you want your dinner guests to have forks? That'll be $3 each. Water glasses too? ...) but also there's something to be said for not cheaping out on what's ostensibly one of the most important days of your life. FWIW, we managed to pay less than many people, while ge…

A car has some level of re-sale value though. UNlike a Diamond or a Wedding.

Good diamonds depreciate less than say cars or stereo equipment or computers. A Tiffany's ring with GIA certs can resell for half its original purchase price. There is an active secondary market in diamonds, so if you buy a high-quality GIA certified stone used, you should be able to sell it for a similar price to what you bought it for. Most of the depreciation on a diamond happens the moment you "drive it off the lot" so a used diamond is going to retain its value much better than a used car.

The key though is having a good quality stone from a reputable cutter with full certification. Diamonds are not fungible like say gold. A low-quality diamond purchased in an expensive mass-market ring isn't going to be worth anything on resale.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#333

Post by mattstreet »

super-serial wrote: post #244
Zimahl wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of how men are marketed to and you'll see the difference. It's not a name brand or a lifestyle, almost everything marketed to men has some sort of pragmatic function to it. Be it the big F-150 that can tow a ton, to the comfortable (yet fuel efficient!) 4-door sedan. Sport cars might be an exception for most men (although not for me). As much as you don't need it, a $2000 60" HDTV is still more functional than…

"Sexism" has become a dirty word. There's nothing wrong with thinking women and men are wired differently. There have been studies on chimpanzees showing that female chimps choose girly toys (dolls etc), and male chimps choose male toys (weapons, trucks etc) without any outside influence. Yet people act like the human species is different. They believe people only become who they are because of indoctrination into th…

The end result is you should talk to your partner and find out what they want and discus it.

If I had bought my wife a diamond ring it would have showed her I really didn't know her.

Pull out whatever study you want that says men are wired X and women are wired Y - that study is based on samples and statistics. You'll find plenty of girls that like trucks and boys that like dolls. Treat the people around you like individuals who can have both male and female traits and their own unique personality.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#334

Post by evilduck »

logn wrote: post #172
evilduck wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I short circuited this and married a geologist. She picked out a cheap diamond ring because diamonds are still "what goes on your wedding ring" but we only spent about $200 on it. Now, the misstep in marrying a geologist is that she owns many other rocks worth much more.

If your wife could choose any rock for a ring (cultural expectations aside), which would it be?

Her answer:

For an actual rock (which are classified differently than gemstones) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourmaline

and her reasoning, "Actually gains value, good ones are not common (like diamonds are), awesome variety of colors"

Also said she likes aquamarine for actual gemstones (it's beryl, same thing as emeralds), but it's not as hard as diamond and wouldn't stand up to the daily abuse as well.

She also said she'd enjoy an uncut diamond mounted in a ring, but that's probably purely the geologist in her speaking.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#335

Post by sk5t »

rayiner wrote: post #133
clicks wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) It demonstrates the man's ability to provide; 2) It demonstrates the man's willingness to forgo the other things he could buy with the money for a gift for her that does not directly benefit him in any way; and 3) It demonstrates to the woman's peers her husband's social standing. To play devil's advocate here: If you substitute 'ring' with 'a $3k donation to redcross' you could still potentially qualify all of th…

It doesn't qualify (3), which is a very important one. I've got a daughter. She's only 4 months old, but I've had occasion to think a bit about this. I would not want her to marry someone who wasn't willing to give her a ring? Why? Reasons (1) and (2) I mentioned, sure, but also reason (3). It is the mark of a sensible man that he cares what other people think about him. People who buck social conventions sometimes b…

Would it not be consistent with this argument to say that you wish for your daughter to marry a conformist, cowardly man?

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#336

Post by xymostech »

super-serial wrote: post #244
Zimahl wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of how men are marketed to and you'll see the difference. It's not a name brand or a lifestyle, almost everything marketed to men has some sort of pragmatic function to it. Be it the big F-150 that can tow a ton, to the comfortable (yet fuel efficient!) 4-door sedan. Sport cars might be an exception for most men (although not for me). As much as you don't need it, a $2000 60" HDTV is still more functional than…

"Sexism" has become a dirty word. There's nothing wrong with thinking women and men are wired differently. There have been studies on chimpanzees showing that female chimps choose girly toys (dolls etc), and male chimps choose male toys (weapons, trucks etc) without any outside influence. Yet people act like the human species is different. They believe people only become who they are because of indoctrination into th…

> There's nothing wrong with thinking women and men are wired differently.

And nobody is disagreeing with you. It is sexist to say "women are more influenced by marketing" when they are not. If men and women are influenced the same, then making a statement about the difference between them is being sexist.

So, if someone can actually provide some data that shows whether or not women are more influenced than men, instead of everyone continuing to provide anecdotes (as you have), then we can either stop saying false things, or we can accept that different genders work differently.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#337

Post by lectrick »

It's unfortunate that there are few women who would appreciate my progressive view of these, even if I would gladly pay double for a really nice vacation and a nominal ring instead (and let's face it, it's the actual decision that matters the most, anyway)

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#338

Post by tsotha »

bradleyland wrote: post #279
eli wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember reading this very good Wired article [1] ( "Armed with inexpensive, mass-produced gems, two startups are launching an assault on the De Beers cartel. Next up: the computing industry." ) and assuming we were on the verge of a major disruption. But that was 10 years ago. Anyone know why it didn't quite work out that way? [1] http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html

The psychology of diamonds only works if you pay a lot for the stone. I would posit that synthetic diamonds fail for the same reasons that knock-offs like cubic zirconiums fail. They don't deliver on the promise of the advertising. The advertising promises that your love can only be shown by spending a lot of money on this specific thing with these specific set of arbitrary selected attributes. E.g., it must come fro…

Yes, like gifts in many situations it's not what you buy that's important. It's what you spend.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#339

Post by mattstreet »

rayiner wrote: post #213
guylhem wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You talk about oil and injustice, but there is no reasonable cost effective substitute to oil at the moment, while there are better alternatives to natural diamonds - man made diamonds - which could easily become cheaper too. > "If you're an American, your comfortable life exists because of the American government's willingness to inflict violence on other people to maintain our status in the world" There are few alt…

De Beers isn't a monopolist and hasn't been once since 2000, when key producers in Canada, Australia, Russia, India, etc, started selling diamonds outside the channels. The negative externality caused by diamonds is tiny in comparison to the ones caused by fossil fuels. For individuals, there are reasonable, cost-effective substitutes to reduce oil consumption. I take an electric train to work and walk everywhere els…

I'm starting to think you work for De Beers...

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#340

Post by evilduck »

evilduck wrote: post #334
logn wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your wife could choose any rock for a ring (cultural expectations aside), which would it be?

Her answer: For an actual rock (which are classified differently than gemstones) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourmaline and her reasoning, "Actually gains value, good ones are not common (like diamonds are), awesome variety of colors" Also said she likes aquamarine for actual gemstones (it's beryl, same thing as emeralds), but it's not as hard as diamond and wouldn't stand up to the daily abuse as well. She also sai…

She sent me this link as an example: http://www.etsy.com/listing/85093794/on-sale-rose-cut-indico...

She's also a fan of monzinite and clear topaz.

Post reply on HN